Complicated

Charge: BC-STV is too complicated

I think BC-STV can be as easy or as complicated as one wants it to be. I don’t believe everybody needs to understand every little hypothetical situation that could arise in order to be a responsible voter under BC-STV. Watching the simple animation at http://stv.ca/watch gives sufficient information for a basic understanding of how it works which is all that is really necessary. For those who want to go beyond the basics and complicate things, I can totally understand this desire for the details as I myself am a detail oriented person which is why I began this blog in the first place… to put the details together in one spot.

For those who just want to keep it simple…

In the simplest form, voters only need to learn about the one candidate they are interested in and put a ‘1’ beside their name rather than an ‘X’. However, it is better to learn about more of the candidates in their multi-member district and rank their choices of candidates with a ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, etc. It is also good to know that if your first choice has more than enough votes to be elected then your vote will be partially transferred to your second choice as your first choice doesn’t need all of it. Also, if your first choice has been eliminated, as they do not have enough votes to be elected, then your vote will be fully transferred to your second choice. This means that there will be less wasted votes (since they are transferred) and will give near proportional results (a close match between popular vote and number of seats in the house) and will reduce the problem of vote splitting (ex. where two parties on the ‘left’ split the ‘left’ vote making it an easy win for the one party on the ‘right’ often resulting in ‘safe’ seats and less accountability as under FPTP)

Response by dgrant (1),

“…you don't have to rank all candidates on the ballot in BC-STV … so it doesn't have to be that complicated. For some it can be as simple as ranking all Liberal candidates 1,2 and that's it with no other choices. I don't think simplicity/complexity should be an issue. People are required by law (if you owe taxes at least) to submit tax returns which are far more complicated. It's unfortunate that some things in life are complicated but for something as important as choosing our elected representatives every 4-5 years I'll take complicated over FPTP.”

Response by Antony Hodgson (2),

“It sounds to me as though you're concerned about voters understanding the system. I think it's really easy, and have taught my 11 year old son how to do an STV count. Most people are simply unfamiliar with how STV works, but I find that I can usually get across the idea in 30 seconds or so. I have faith that BC voters are every bit as smart as the Irish, Australians, New Zealanders, Scottish, and Americans who all use STV.”

Response by Dan Grice (3),

“[An opponent to BC-STV] probably knows he cannot convince other voters that British Columbia is best served by a two party electoral system. So instead, he is trying to convince voters that they must understand every single statistical possibility under BC-STV before they support it. He likes to focus on things like the droop formula (Votes/Seats+1). The droop formula may require some voters to blow the dust off their grade 8 Algebra textbooks to remember what a fraction looks like, but it is hardly some "complicated" formula as [an opponent] describes it. The droop formula works to make sure as many votes count as can be realistic in an area. If there was one seat, a candidate would have to get elected by 1/2 the votes plus one. If there are three seats, a candidate would require 1/4 or 25% of the votes plus one.

[An opponent] probably realized that droop is the fairest way of allocating seats in districts with 2-7 candidates, but he doesn't support any sort of fair distribution of seats so he hopes to confuse people into having second doubts.”

(1) ‘G West, I don't see the’ by dgrant, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/22/STVFunding/#comment

(2) Antony Hodgson said… , http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

(3) David Schreck's strange opposition to BC-STV by Dan Grice, http://www.dangrice.com/?q=node/224